Atheism

[Davin]

You'd have to show the etymology that Greek prefix "a, an" ever only meant the lack of part of what it is attached to.

My only point is that people who say that the word atheism was invented by adding the prefix a- to the word 'theism' aren't necessarily right.

I agree.

I've already said more than once that as far as I'm concerned, anybody can invent a word or re-invent an existing word and attach any meaning they want to it.  In my experience the dire warnings of chaos that pour forth when I state this basic commitment to free speech rarely come to pass, because people are genuinely interested in getting their meaning across.  If you want to add the greek prefix a- to the word 'theism' and call it atheism then you are free to do so, I'm just saying don't claim some false authority from it from etymology.

Never have claimed any authority let alone a false one. I gave the citations to some source material on the subject and never had said that it's that way because I or someone else said so and I or they are professionals of some kind and therefore should be trusted.

The word atheism as you constructed it is not the same as my construction, but you are free to use it.

Obviously. The point I'm making is that your definition is different than any definition that the word should mean, especially from the etymology of the word. If one could trace back the word to something that meant the lack of gerbils, would you take the "etymological" stance that it means that "atheism is the lack of gerbils in the belief of a god or gods" just because it existed before the word "atheo"? What about the etymology of the words theo and theoreo, both of which existed before the word atheo? Theo and theoreo Greek -> English Lexicon (θέω Pg 521 and θεωρέω Pg 636). Does that mean that atheo is the lack of running, viewing and contemplating? Thereby making atheism the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplating?

When I say I am an atheist, I mean I take the stance that there is no god.  God doesn't exist.  There's nothing wrong with that.   There's also nothing wrong with exploring the full philosophical consequences of a consistently atheist position.    Having established what one sees as those full consequences, I don't see anything wrong with someone saying that "my atheism means that..." an outlining some philosophical, personal, political or other ideas.  Atheism, like socialism, existentialism or empiricism, or many other -isms (but not all) can have a huge set of attached ideas.  If it didn't, there'd be no need for atheist internet forums like this one.

I don't see anything wrong with people holding different beliefs, ideas and/or concepts, just stop trying to change the meanings of words just because you personally want it to mean a specific thing.

[Existentialist]

Thanks Davin once again.  When you said

Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

You were incorrect, because you based that view on the false authority of etymology itself by saying

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism

I've said why this was an incorrect argument (the a- had already been added by the greeks to their word theos, meaning God, thus... 'not of god', 'not of theism'.)  I'm sure we can agree you were incorrect, so we need not keep arguing about the same ground using slightly different words!  I'm happy for you to continuing arguing if you feel you want to.

The point I'm making is that your definition is different than any definition that the word should mean, especially from the etymology of the word. If one could trace back the word to something that meant the lack of gerbils, would you take the "etymological" stance that it means that "atheism is the lack of gerbils in the belief of a god or gods" just because it existed before the word "atheo"?

An etymological analysis can only inform us about a word, it can't dictate to us the meaning.  However, if someone is trying to claim as you did that the meaning of the word atheism is the 'absence of theism' based on a centuries-old etymological history which is false, it's reasonable for me to point out that it's false.  

What about the etymology of the words theo and theoreo, both of which existed before the word atheo? Theo and theoreo Greek -> English Lexicon (θέω Pg 521 and θεωρέω Pg 636). Does that mean that atheo is the lack of running, viewing and contemplating? Thereby making atheism the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplating?

It might have meant that in ancient times, I haven't looked at your link nor the contextual record to work it out.  Atheo isn't a word that's used nowadays, we use atheism, and it doesn't mean the lack of running.

I don't see anything wrong with people holding different beliefs, ideas and/or concepts, just stop trying to change the meanings of words just because you personally want it to mean a specific thing.

I'm afraid I can't stop doing something I haven't even started.  Please supply some evidence that I'm "trying to change the meanings of words".  I think atheism means the denial of the existence of god.  It may not be a majority view on this forum, but it is a commonly-stated definition of atheism, so I haven't tried to 'change' anything, let alone a meaning.

[Davin]

Thanks Davin once again.  When you said

Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

You were incorrect, because you based that view on the false authority of etymology itself by saying

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism

I've said why this was an incorrect argument (the a- had already been added by the greeks to their word theos, meaning God, thus... 'not of god', 'not of theism'.)  I'm sure we can agree you were incorrect, so we need not keep arguing about the same ground using slightly different words!  I'm happy for you to continuing arguing if you feel you want to.

I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism. You want to change the meaning of the Greek prefix "a, an" to mean that it is the lack of the first part "theos" and not the last part "ism." While this may make you all happy inside, there is no precedence of any kind to accept that usage of the prefix. The prefix is attached to the the whole word, not just the bits you want it to be attached to. You accepted the sources I provided but continue to disregard what they say on the matter, which is humorous in it's inconsistency. I suggest either dropping your support of the sources I provided or drop your definition of the word that is counter to the sources I provided. It doesn't bother me to continue to point to where I was wrong, you can do so as much as as you wish, however if you have a problem arguing the same ground, maybe you should stop bringing up my first post. I really don't mind if you do, it's just funny for you to keep referring to and quoting the first post I made in this thread, then point out that we're arguing the same ground.

The point I'm making is that your definition is different than any definition that the word should mean, especially from the etymology of the word. If one could trace back the word to something that meant the lack of gerbils, would you take the "etymological" stance that it means that "atheism is the lack of gerbils in the belief of a god or gods" just because it existed before the word "atheo"?

An etymological analysis can only inform us about a word, it can't dictate to us the meaning.  However, if someone is trying to claim as you did that the meaning of the word atheism is the 'absence of theism' based on a centuries-old etymological history which is false, it's reasonable for me to point out that it's false.

Despite reading and quoting my first post in this thread several times, it appears that my points made in it are escaping your ability to comprehend. " However, if someone is trying to claim as you did that the meaning of the word atheism is the 'absence of theism' based on a centuries-old etymological history[...]" I have not ever said anything similar to this, you are the one who is bringing up "centuries-old etymology"... well at least with baseless assertions. I've provided a few sources that lead to the conclusions I've come to, while all I've seen from your side of the argument is just your opinion. So who's position is false: the position that has evidence to back it up or your side with mere speculation?

What about the etymology of the words theo and theoreo, both of which existed before the word atheo? Theo and theoreo Greek -> English Lexicon (θέω Pg 521 and θεωρέω Pg 636). Does that mean that atheo is the lack of running, viewing and contemplating? Thereby making atheism the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplating?

It might have meant that in ancient times, I haven't looked at your link nor the contextual record to work it out.  Atheo isn't a word that's used nowadays, we use atheism, and it doesn't mean the lack of running.

I'm glad you understand that, and also, "An etymological analysis can only inform us about a word, it can't dictate to us the meaning." when you you're also saying something like, "I've said why this was an incorrect argument (the a- had already been added by the greeks to their word theos, meaning God, thus... 'not of god', 'not of theism'.)[.]"

I'm sure we can agree that you are incorrect, using you're own reasoning. Or we can follow your reasoning and come to the conclusion that atheism means "the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplation." After all, the "a-" was attached to the word that means "running" before "-ism" was added to it. Or we can just both agree that your unique process, is as ridiculous as it sounds.

I don't see anything wrong with people holding different beliefs, ideas and/or concepts, just stop trying to change the meanings of words just because you personally want it to mean a specific thing.

I'm afraid I can't stop doing something I haven't even started.  Please supply some evidence that I'm "trying to change the meanings of words".  I think atheism means the denial of the existence of god.  It may not be a majority view on this forum, but it is a commonly-stated definition of atheism, so I haven't tried to 'change' anything, let alone a meaning.

Enjoyably you have, instead of accepting the meaning of the prefix as every source states the usage of the prefix, you have decided that the prefix means something very different. There is another Greek prefix that when used in place of the Greek prefix "a, an" means what you merely asserted "atheism" means... which is "anti, ant".

[Existentialist]

I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.

You said:-

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I hope you don't mind if I go through what you said there, point by point explaining my full position â€" the Devil is in the detail, as they say!  As this is becoming a very long quest for the incontrovertible truth, which I don't think either of us are going to find, I have decided to stop suggesting that either of us is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ because it’s obvious to me we’re not going to agree what is correct or incorrect.  I therefore hope it is useful for me to go through your statement and say what I agree with and disagree with.  

1) The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist."  - Disagree (you have also now stated that you disagree with your own original statement on this, and not just about the date - thank you for your acknowledgement of this.  Just to reiterate my view, the word theist did not appear in English until a long time after the word atheist so it is difficult for me to see how the prefix a- could have been added to a non-existent word at the time the first appearance of the word atheist in English.
2) Theist is derived from "theos" - Agree
3) And roughly means "with god" - Disagree - Theos means God, if you're talking objectively rather than assigning a subjective, personally-chosen definition to the word Theos.  Looking at the matter objectively, any concept of 'with' can only be deduced according to the context in which the word 'Theos' appears.  This is a minor point though and my broader analysis of our disagreements about the word theist is not dependent this minor matter of disagreement.
4) The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" - Agree
5) So when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." - Disagree because this is an incomplete statement for the following reasons:-
a. Atheist can be an adjective or noun that describes the state of being "without god" as you have said, but also -
b. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who does not believe in gods" (with associated adjectival form)
c. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who believes there is no god" (with associated adjectival form)
d. Atheist can also mean anything anybody wants it to mean (please see my defence in 7d before responding to this)
6) Atheism is the same - Agree, if you mean that the way that the way 'atheism' is constructed is the same as the word 'atheist'
7) it just means absence of theism Disagree because 'just'  implies no other meaning is possible, the following meanings could apply:-
a. Atheism can mean "absence of theism" which is the meaning you have chosen for it above, but also -  
b. Atheism can also mean "absence of belief in gods"  
c. Atheism can also mean "the belief or position that there is no god"
d. As far as I am concerned, atheism can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.  This is the basis on which I am prepared to concede that atheism could mean your preferred definition, "absence of theism" which is why I have said that it is possible to have the definition in 7a.  Your preferred definition has a lot going for it - it is internally logical, it seems to make sense in terms of some usages of the word atheism, but on balance to my mind it is incomplete in terms of describing the usages of the word atheism.  So while I would not seek to prevent you or others from using the word atheism to mean ‘absence of theism’, I would not to choose to use it to mean this and would prefer a dictionary definition - "denial of the existence of God".
That's it.  - Disagree  if by "That's it" is meant "there is no other definition that is valid," then "That's it" is far from being a statement I could possibly agree with in this context (see 7b, 7c and 7d)  
9) Don't try to make the word mean any more than that - Disagree.  A command telling someone that they should not decide meanings to the word atheism other than 'absence of theism' is dictatorial and too restricting.  It would mean compulsorily discarding standard dictionary meanings (e.g. "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God") in favour of a less commonly used meaning which you have proposed, “absence of theism.”

On the subject of references to external websites, I haven't felt the need to make any such references in this discussion, since my arguments have been internally logical throughout and I think that most people should be able to follow them and point out any flaws within them.  I took some time to look up the three websites you referred to and they said nothing to indicate that a greek prefix such as a- necessarily applies to the whole word it prefixes.  As far as I’m concerned we’re just exchanging opinions here.  If you can provide any arguments that might cause me to want to change the statements I have made in this post, I would be only too willing to consider them.

EDIT: I know you brought up a number of other issues in your previous post, but I thought it important to answer you first sentence first, which is what I have devoted this post to.  I haven't had time to deal with the second sentence tonight - to be honest, I don't think I'm going to get time, but I hope you appreciate the effort I've made in starting at the beginning.  Thanks Davin.

[hackenslash]

A couple of things.

To begin, existentialist's arguments concerning the etymology are all correct. The cited definition, however, while acceptable as a definition, is not rigorous.

Atheism can be (and is, by most dictionaries in at least one of the senses stated) defined as 'absence of belief in a deity. I would argue that this is the only definition that is rigorous for two reasons. Firstly, it is the only definition that constitutes the two definitional features of being sufficient andp/i] necessary to describe atheism. That is to say that, for somebody to be described as an atheist, it is sufficient that they merely lack an active belief in the existence of a deity, and it is necessary that they at least lack an active belief in a deity. If they do not lack an active belief in a deity, they cannot be described as atheist, and if they do, they can. Secondly, the definition of atheism as absence of belief in a deity is the only definition that applies to the full set of all atheists. There is no atheist that does not lack an active belief in a deity. In that light, this is the only robust and unambiguous definition.

Any definition that does not apply to the full set of that which it describes cannot be said to be a definition. All other definitions only partially apply, and must therefore be considered unrobust. All other features that can be ascribed to an atheist are therefore extraneous to that which defines them as atheist. This includes an active belief in the non-existence of a deity, and certainly includes any such features as critical thinking, disbelief in the supernatural in general, and anything else that might be attributed. All that is both sufficient and necessary is the absence of a single class of belief.

[Existentialist]

Thank you hackenslash for saying that my arguments concerning etymology are correct.  However, in the way I put my argument in my previous post, I avoided use of the terms 'correct' and 'incorrect'.  I don't believe that it is possible or helpful at this stage for any of us to accurately take an objective stance towards the definition of atheism, and I think to do so would be to claim the authority of an independent figure, which none of us us, and which nobody is.  I think the same applies to the new concept you've introduced of 'robustness'.  I don't agree that a definition is only a definition if it encapsulates all the possible or major separate definitions of it.  To my mind a definition is a thing that defines, it brings a concept into focus, in which case describing an atheist as someone who believes there isn't a god is satisfactory.  I don't think any definition of any word is 'robust' - all words really need to be treated as needing the context of sentences around them to become meaningful, a word doesn't have any life of its own in isolation from other words, and if it is set out on its own for some reason (eg a survey) it is usually in the context of its terms already having been set out in some way, e.g. 'Do you consider yourself to be an atheist?'  It is tempting but probably unhelpful for me or anyone to seek the 'correct' ground on this matter, however the term 'correct' is constructed: eg robust, accurate, sound etc.

[hackenslash]

I don't believe that it is possible or helpful at this stage for any of us to accurately take an objective stance towards the definition of atheism,

And yet I just did the very thing that you think is not possible, and I did it in a logical and robust manner, which means simply that you're wrong.

 

I think the same applies to the new concept you've introduced of 'robustness'.

You think that robustness is a new concept? Are you serious?


Oh, and this:

I don't agree that a definition is only a definition if it encapsulates all the possible or major separate definitions of it.

Contradicts this, which comes immediately after it:

To my mind a definition is a thing that defines

If a definition is a thing that defines, then it must apply to the full set, or there are member of a set not defined by its definition. Do you see how ridiculous this is? This is one of the most beautiful examples of hoisting oneself on one's own petard that this commentor has ever come across.

it brings a concept into focus, in which case describing an atheist as someone who believes there isn't a god is satisfactory.

No it isn't, because it doesn't define. Read back over your own comments, see the contradiction, and learn something about how language actually works.

I don't think any definition of any word is 'robust'

Then you haven't studied any science, or indeed any proper philosophy, as large areas of them are concerned with precisely that, namely making definitions as precise and robust as possble.

 

- all words really need to be treated as needing the context of sentences around them to become meaningful,

Absolute nonsense. How about the word 'zero'. Does that require context? What about 'water'? I could go on almost indefinitely which make a mockery of your statement here.

a word doesn't have any life of its own in isolation from other words,

Read up for a single statement that shreds this idea.

I'll leave the rest of your post, because the damage to your argument has already been done, and it is terminal. Until and unless you can come up with a good reason why my definition and the reasons given for its rigour are insufficient, you have no argument.

[Davin]

I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.

You said:-

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I hope you don't mind if I go through what you said there, point by point explaining my full position â€" the Devil is in the detail, as they say!  As this is becoming a very long quest for the incontrovertible truth, which I don't think either of us are going to find, I have decided to stop suggesting that either of us is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ because it’s obvious to me we’re not going to agree what is correct or incorrect.  I therefore hope it is useful for me to go through your statement and say what I agree with and disagree with.

No problem, just realize that it is you that has the need to nitpick at this and bring it up again.

2) Theist is derived from "theos" - Agree
3) And roughly means "with god" - Disagree - Theos means God, if you're talking objectively rather than assigning a subjective, personally-chosen definition to the word Theos.  Looking at the matter objectively, any concept of 'with' can only be deduced according to the context in which the word 'Theos' appears.  This is a minor point though and my broader analysis of our disagreements about the word theist is not dependent this minor matter of disagreement.

This is what is known as "taking something out of context." Let me demonstrate: "And roughly means "with god"" on it's own can appear to be wrong once you cut it from the entire sentence and even capitalize the "a" in the word "and". However the context of the original sentence "Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god"" clearly shows that the thing that roughly means "with god" is the word "theist" and not the word "theos". This is very dishonest of you.

4) The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" - Agree
5) So when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." - Disagree because this is an incomplete statement for the following reasons:-
a. Atheist can be an adjective or noun that describes the state of being "without god" as you have said, but also -
b. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who does not believe in gods" (with associated adjectival form)
c. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who believes there is no god" (with associated adjectival form)
d. Atheist can also mean anything anybody wants it to mean (please see my defence in 7d before responding to this)

Another context problem, I didn't say that that is the only thing it means. I appears that you're now resorting to unscrupulous tactics. A little nit picking here, a person can believe there is no god and be an atheist (one who doesn't believe in god), the same way a rectangle can be a square. Because the word also matches a person who believes there is no god, doesn't meant that the word means that, just that the meaning of the word can be applied to a variety of people, some of whom believe things.

6) Atheism is the same - Agree, if you mean that the way that the way 'atheism' is constructed is the same as the word 'atheist'
7) it just means absence of theism Disagree because 'just'  implies no other meaning is possible, the following meanings could apply:-
a. Atheism can mean "absence of theism" which is the meaning you have chosen for it above, but also -  
b. Atheism can also mean "absence of belief in gods"  
c. Atheism can also mean "the belief or position that there is no god"

Theism can mean belief in gods, atheism is not that. Theism can be the belief that there is a god, atheism is not that. Hell, if theism meant "the belief that pickles dance with gerbils on Tuesday nights," atheism would not be that.

9) Don't try to make the word mean any more than that - Disagree.  A command telling someone that they should not decide meanings to the word atheism other than 'absence of theism' is dictatorial and too restricting.  It would mean compulsorily discarding standard dictionary meanings (e.g. "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God") in favour of a less commonly used meaning which you have proposed, “absence of theism.”

Yes, I am a dictator... this is almost Godwin's Law but not quite.

On the subject of references to external websites, I haven't felt the need to make any such references in this discussion, since my arguments have been internally logical throughout and I think that most people should be able to follow them and point out any flaws within them.  I took some time to look up the three websites you referred to and they said nothing to indicate that a greek prefix such as a- necessarily applies to the whole word it prefixes.  As far as I’m concerned we’re just exchanging opinions here.  If you can provide any arguments that might cause me to want to change the statements I have made in this post, I would be only too willing to consider them.

Aye, the meaning of the prefix is applied to the word it is a part of... not just the bits you want it to be attached to. Never before this have I seen anyone argue that the meaning of the prefix only changes part of the word. So if you have an example, I mean other than "atheist" and "atheism" which you think the meaning of prefix only applies to part of the word, I'd love to see it. I mean it would also be good if you had anything other than merely asserting that the meaning of prefix only applies to part of the word. I know how difficult it must be to not have anything to back up what you merely assert and still hold that it's true in spite evidence to the contrary. Well I don't really, but I imagine that it must be very difficult.

"A prefix is an affix which is placed before the stem of a word. Particularly in the study of Semitic languages, a prefix is called a preformative, because it alters the form of the words to which it is affixed." Notice the wording of the definition is that it alters the form of the words to which it is affixed, not that it only changes part of the word based on which parts were historically written and/or used first.

EDIT: I know you brought up a number of other issues in your previous post, but I thought it important to answer you first sentence first, which is what I have devoted this post to.  I haven't had time to deal with the second sentence tonight - to be honest, I don't think I'm going to get time, but I hope you appreciate the effort I've made in starting at the beginning.  Thanks Davin.

I don't much care either way, I just thought it was funny that you seemed to be complaining that we're going over the same ground while, once again, bringing up the same ground. The whole purpose of continuing the discussion is for the entertainment value. Taking me out of context, the thinly veiled dictator reference, the absence of supporting evidence and the tone from the word choices and context... etc. are all very funny. Even the continuously bringing up my first post in this thread has been amusing.

[Existentialist]

Thanks again, hackenslash for responding.  I'm afraid I disagree with a number of your arguments.

I don't believe that it is possible or helpful at this stage for any of us to accurately take an objective stance towards the definition of atheism,

And yet I just did the very thing that you think is not possible

I disagree.  I do think it is possible for somebody to say something is correct or incorrect.  I do not think it is possible for someone to be correct or to be incorrect.  Correct and incorrect are concepts that depend on objectivity, and while somebody may be able to say they are correct, this is different from being correct, which to my mind is strictly speaking neither possible nor helpful in this conversation, since we are all subjective beings who are separated from an objective viewpoint.

and I did it in a logical

I disagree.  Your logic was rather superficial, being based on the idea that somebody saying they are being objective is the same as them being objective.

and robust manner

I disagree.  From my point of view you statements seem to break down very quickly in the light of what I have already said in this post.

which means simply that you're wrong.

I disagree.  I have identified a number of points of disagreement and I think I have already expressed my view of the concepts of 'correct' and 'incorrect', and by implication 'right' and 'wrong' in this argument.  

I think the same applies to the new concept you've introduced of 'robustness'.

You think that robustness is a new concept?

I meant it is a new concept to this conversation.

Are you serious?

Yes I am, and to be honest I feel that this question is usually asked more for effect in seeking to discredit another's sincerity than to establish seriousness.

Oh, and this:

I don't agree that a definition is only a definition if it encapsulates all the possible or major separate definitions of it.

Contradicts this, which comes immediately after it:

To my mind a definition is a thing that defines

With respect I do not see the contradiction in those two statements.  Feel free to describe what the contradiction is, I don't think you've fully explained it.

If a definition is a thing that defines, then it must apply to the full set, or there are member of a set not defined by its definition. Do you see how ridiculous this is? This is one of the most beautiful examples of hoisting oneself on one's own petard that this commentor has ever come across.

Thanks but I do not see on what basis you think that if a definition defines, then it must apply to 'the full set'.  Conflicting definitions need not be consistent with each other, as I think the lists I gave to Davin in my previous reply indicate, when you look at them.  The definition that atheism means, 'Denial of the existence of God' is not consistent with the definition that atheism means, 'Disbelief in the existence of God'.  One is narrower than the other.  It could be said that disbelief of the existence of God includes the denial of the existence of God, but this does not mean that the denial of the existence of God can include the disbelief in the existence of God, which is a weaker concept.  Ridiculousness and the hoisting of petards don't come into it.  Contradictions are often present when comparing different definitions, this does not mean that any one definition is right, or that definitions must apply to 'the full set'.

I think what I've said so far really answers the whole of your post, pretty much up to the end of what you said.  To summarise the remainder of your post you mention robustness again, I disagree with your point about context, and to words like ridiculous, petard-hoisting, my alleged educational deficits, you add several concepts like 'nonsense', 'mockery' of me and say that I have 'no argument'.  I prefer to prioritise rational arguments put to me on this and other forums which are not accompanied by suggestions of mockery and ridicule, so I hope you will accept my apology for being unable to find the full length of time required to respond to these specific arguments from you with the same care and attention to detail that I did to the earlier arguments in your post.

[Stevil]

I find it a fruitless exercise to argue the correct definition of a word. Especially if there is no agreement as with regards to a common source for the definition of words.
Lengthy arguments over the definition of words only detracts from the actual points that have been formulated using the words whose definitions have been argued.

Sometimes it makes sense in formal documents to include a glossary of terms and words so that within the context of the document at least there is a common understanding as to the words being used. This overcomes the differences in the individual reader's understanding of a word and hence the bulk of the effort can be with regards to understanding the point rather than arguing about word definitions.

This is a common problem and hence glossaries is a commonly used solution.

[Existentialist]

Thanks Stevil.  I tend to disagree with you on this - I have found this a very useful discussion, far from fruitless, and it has helped me clarify a lot about what people think of the word 'atheism' - what it means, how they use it, and how attached people can be to their underlying concepts of atheism.  Words are only tools that help people to describe what those underlying concepts are, I think it's quite important to express disagreement when somebody is repeatedly saying a word like 'atheism' can only mean one thing.

[Existentialist]

No problem, just realize that it is you that has the need to nitpick at this and bring it up again.

Just to recap, the main question for me is whether or not the word 'atheism' means just 'the absence of theism' as you claimed in this post.  You were unambiguous in arguing that this is the only possible meaning of the word because you said in the same post that atheism "just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that" in the same post.   It is in the nature of a quote that it is taken out of context, which is why it is important for the person quoting someone to be as true as humanly possible to the original intended meaning of the full statement being quoted, which I think I have been whenever I have quoted you.  To avoid the accusation that I have taken this out of context, I will quote your paragraph again in full.  You said,

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

You went on to re-state your claim that atheism is the "absence of theism" in a subsequent post as follows:-

I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.

I think the matter of whether atheism means "absence of theism" is a huge question.  I disagree that the word 'nitpicking' describes my responses.  It is good that you find the debate entertaining and amusing because I would not want you to take it to heart.  I am not disagreeing with detail just for the sake of it.  The whole purpose of my contributions is to make it as clear as I can what I fundamentally disagree with you about, which is your statement, which you have not retracted, that you think that atheism means the "absence of theism" and that it can't mean anything else.  It is because you have continued to stand by this statement that I have felt the need to describe a number of other meanings.  I am sorry you think of my contributions as nitpicking.  I think my arguments are comprehensive.

I am sorry I have not had the time to answer here every point you made in your last post.  I really have run out of time I'm afraid and I now have other priorities.  However I do not think I am avoiding the issues because I do believe that I have already covered everything you have raised throughout this thread.

[Stevil]

Thanks Stevil.  I tend to disagree with you on this - I have found this a very useful discussion, far from fruitless, and it has helped me clarify a lot about what people think of the word 'atheism' - what it means, how they use it, and how attached people can be to their underlying concepts of atheism.  Words are only tools that help people to describe what those underlying concepts are, I think it's quite important to express disagreement when somebody is repeatedly saying a word like 'atheism' can only mean one thing.

The problem I have with your approach is that you fight for a definition but you do not offer the source of that definition. Hence how is a person to know whether that definition is used by people other than yourself?

[Existentialist]

I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.

[Stevil]

I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.

Fair enough. I didn't read your whole conversation, it just seemed similar to the conversation we had a week ago or so. However if you simply provide URL's to some reasonably used word definition repositories to support your case you then won't have to argue.